nea higher educationadvocate · nea leads effort to protect student loan forgiveness (and wins!)...

NEA Higher EducationAdvocateVOL. 36, NO. 3 MAY 2018

Helping Students Learn

HOT: Bargaining for the Common Good in Higher Education

Yes, “right to work” laws really do mean “right to work for less”

What do we want to see in the next Higher Education Act?

Real solutions to gun violence on campuses

NEA MEMBERS INSURANCE TRUST ANNUAL REPORT

See 4

1805Advocate-Cover.indd 1 4/10/18 5:01 PM

NEA HIGHER EDUCATION ADVOCATE2

THE SALARY ISSUE 3Our annual dive into faculty sala-

ries shows the power of unions.

TRIVING IN ACADEME 6How can you make evidence-

based teaching methods work for

you?

BARGAINING 10The latest trend at the table is

bargaining for the common good

in higher education.

STATE OF THE STATES 13How NH staff put their new con-

tract to use.

OPINION 16

Advocate (ISSN: 1522-5682) is published

four times a year, in September,

November, January, and May by the

National Education Association, 1201

16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Periodicals postage paid at Washington,

D.C., and additional mailing offi ces.

The Advocate is mailed to NEA Higher

Education members as a benefi t of

membership. Postmaster: Send change

of address to Advocate, 1201 16th St.,

N.W., Suite 710, Washington, D.C. 20036.

Copyright © 2017 by the National

Education Assoc.

To stop receiving print materials from

NEA, visit nea.org/home/30206.htm, or

call 202-822-7207.

National Education Association

Lily Eskelsen GarcíaNEA PRESIDENT

Rebecca S. PringleVICE PRESIDENT

Princess MossSECRETARY-

TREASURER

John C. StocksEXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR

NEA Center for Communications

Ramona OliverSENIOR DIRECTOR

Steven GrantASSOCIATE

DIRECTOR

Mary Ellen FlanneryEDITOR

Groff Creative GRAPHIC DESIGN

Prepared with the assistance of NEA staff:

Nilka JulioNancy O’BrienMark F. SmithValerie WilkPhadra Williams

NEA leads effort to protect student loan forgiveness (and wins!)

WHEN SECRETARY OF EDUCATION BETSY

DEVOS PROPOSED ELIMINATING the federal

Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)

program, a 10-year-old program that

makes college more affordable for many

educators, NEA leaders said no way. In

2017, NEA led the formation of a biparti-

san House caucus to protect PSLF, and thousands of NEA

members appealed to their members of Congress to protect

this critical college affordability measure. Their efforts paid

off this spring, when the House and Senate passed a $1.3

trillion omnibus budget package that includes the fi rst-ever

discretionary appropriation of $350 million for PSLF. The bill

also provides a technical fi x to the program, modifying eligi-

bility for borrowers who were unaware they were enrolled in

an ineligible repayment plan but otherwise are eligible for

loan forgiveness. The budget also boosts the maximum Pell

Grant award by $175 a year.

Our priorities for the next Higher Education Act

WHEN WILL CONGRESS TAKE UP

THE REAUTHORZATION OF THE

HIGHER EDUCATION ACT (HEA)?

The act, which is the “single

most important piece of leg-

islation pertaining to higher

education,” says NEA Senior

Policy Analyst Mark Smith,

was due for reauthorization

in 2014. We’re still ready—

and waiting. Two years ago,

NEA, AFT and AAUP issued

a joint statement, focusing

on what the unions want to

see in the next HEA, including measures to invest in access

and affordability; quality and accountability; and teacher

preparation. Another statement is in the works, which will

maintain focus on those issues but also include our growing

concerns over working conditions for faculty and staff, safe

campuses, and re-investment in post-secondary education

for the 21st century. “The working conditions of faculty are

the learning conditions of students. Improving working con-

ditions results in improving learning conditions,” notes

Smith. A key issue is the national lack of support for contin-

gent faculty, who comprise about 75 percent of college and

university faculty in the U.S. NEA also is calling for

increased availability of mental-health counselors on

campuses, strong protections against sexual assaults on

campuses, and specifi c steps to reduce shootings.

I read articles like “The

Professor Who Lives In

Her Car,” (January,

NEA Advocate) and am

always absolutely

amazed that people

would put up with

treatment like this. Your

article highlights that

the average annual

salary for an adjunct in

the U.S. is $20,000. Why

would anyone with a

masters degree, or even

no degree, actually do

this? You can make

more at either Walmart

or Starbucks. Unem-

ployment in the U.S. is

basically at a rate indi-

cating full employment,

which means that any

reasonably educated

person, presumably the

exact one covered in

your article, could get

plenty of other jobs

making more money.

So, I could conclude

that James-Penny is

simply choosing to live

in her car, or at least

choosing to not get

more sensible employ-

ment for herself. The

problem with your

statistics, and your

story, is that they hide

the real truth: many

adjuncts are doing this

just to keep themselves

busy, or while getting

their now-subsidized or

free Ph.D., or because

they like the summers

and winters off, or

because it matches the

school district schedule.

— Dr. David Firth, Professor of Management Information Systems, University of Montana, Missoula

Headline News LETTER TO THE EDITOR

1805Advocate-NewsP2.indd 2 4/13/18 4:56 PM

NEA HIGHER EDUCATION ADVOCATE 3

PAY

Illustration: nanmulti / istock

Faculty

THE SPECIAL SALARY ISSUE 2018

Once again, the NEA Higher Education Advocate delves deeply

into the subject of faculty pay, specifi cally full-time faculty pay. In this 2018 issue

of the special salary issue, the available data teaches us a few things:

Full-time faculty get paid more, on average, when their union negotiates on their behalf. There is real value—like

calculable dollars—in fi ghting for strong unions. Another thing, in terms of pay, it’s good to be a man, and to teach

at a historically white institution. On average, women faculty still get paid less, while faculty at Historically Black

Colleges and Universities face a growing pay penalty, compared to faculty at other land-grant institutions. As always,

the special issue includes average salaries for full-time faculty of varying ranks at every public institution in U.S.—

to see all of it, visit nea.org/advocate. For a few choice excerpts, turn the page.

1805Advocate_SpecialSalary-p3-5.indd 3 4/10/18 5:08 PM


The union difference

In states where collectively bar-

gained faculty contracts are present,

as noted by Sue Clery in a recent

chapter of the NEA Almanac of

Higher Education, faculty at institu-

tions with union contracts earned

an average of more than $7,000

above faculty without contracts, for

a 9 percent difference (see Table 1,

at right). Community college faculty

in collective bargaining institutions

had the largest differential, earning

nearly $18,000 more than their non-

bargaining colleagues ($76,177 and

$58,314, respectively, a 31 percent

difference). Meanwhile, faculty at

comprehensive institutions with

contracts earned about $13,000 more

than those without contracts, or a

20 percent difference. A salary ad-

vantage also existed for faculty in

research universities with contracts,

albeit not as large: $8,000, or a

9 percent advantage over faculty in

research universities without con-

tracts. The public liberal arts sector

is very small, constituting only 1

percent of faculty; as such, interpre-

tation of data for this sector should

be done with caution as the number

of institutions and faculty repre-

sented is small.

W hile full-time faculty

pay fi nally has re-

turned to 2007, pre-

Great Recession levels

(see Figure 1 below), a

brewing storm looms.

This spring or summer, the Supreme Court

will decide the anti-union case Janus v.

AFSCME, in which big-money, corporate

lobbyists have made clear their intention

to weaken public-sector unions and make it

more diffi cult for workers to bargain collec-

tively. The data here, collected and presented

by Coffey Consulting, LLC, shows how the

historic right of American workers to sit

down together and bargain collectively makes

a difference in their salaries, specifi cally.

(It also, of course, makes a big difference

in many other areas of faculty and staff

contracts, including academic freedom,

class sizes, student services, and more.)

To fi nd out more about the Janus case and

to pledge your support for unions, see

neatoday.org/janus.

PAYFaculty

FIGURE 1. AVERAGE FULL-TIME FACULTY SALARIES IN CONSTANT 2016–2017 DOLLARS, BY ACADEMIC RANK, 1996–1997

TO 2016– 2017.

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17

Professor All Ranks Associate Assistant Instructor Lecturer No Rank

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NCES, IPEDS, Salary Survey, various years.

*No IPEDS data collected for 2000 – 2001



How “Right to Work” laws suppress salaries

As of 2016, 26 states have so-called “Right

to Work” laws, where unions are prohibited

from including “union security clauses” in

contracts that require all employees in the

bargaining unit to either join the union or

pay fair-share dues. “Right to Work” laws

make it more diffi cult for unions to organize

and can affect employee salaries. Not sur-

prisingly, faculty at institutions in more

union-friendly states without “Right to

Work” laws earn signifi cantly more on

average than faculty in states with “Right

to Work” laws: $9,518 more at public

2-years and $8,029 more at public 4-years.

TABLE 1. AVERAGE SALARIES FOR FACULTY ON 9/10-MONTH

CONTRACTS IN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

STATUS AND SECTOR: 2016–2017

States containing institutions with collective

bargaining agreements

States not

containing

institutions with

collective

bargaining

agreements

Institutions with

faculty contracts

Institutions

without

faculty contracts

Average $86,710 $79,558 $73,963

Two-year

institutions 76,177 58,314 54,939

Liberal arts

institutions 74,134 75,205 61,884

Comprehensive

institutions 78,430 65,425 64,995

Research/Doctoral-granting institutions 95,884 87,870 82,544

Note: Based on 100 percent of NEA's public institution faculty salary universe (1,568 public institutions) reporting

complete data.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Salary Survey

Provisional Data, 2016 – 2017. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics, 2017; National Education Association, College and University Data Analysis System (CUDAS) database.

Data extracted January 10, 2018.

TABLE 2. AVERAGE FULL-TIME FACULTY SALARIES FOR FACULTY ON 9/10-MONTH CONTRACTS,

BY INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR AND STATE, 2016–2017

State Public 2-year Public 4-year Institutions Instiutions

Alaska ‡ $82,769

Alabama $54,522 79,175

Arkansas 45,112 67,445

Arizona 63,471 87,974

California 89,420 106,178

Colorado 59,783 84,139

Connecticut 78,630 100,501

District of Columbia ‡ 76,855

Delaware 69,919 103,996

Florida 59,349 87,473

Georgia 49,380 78,113

Hawaii 73,588 100,057

Iowa 59,485 92,110

Idaho 52,738 68,346

Illinois 75,892 85,984

Indiana 51,068 86,811

Kansas 54,368 76,393

Kentucky 51,772 74,524

Louisiana 43,738 67,863

Massachusetts 66,387 96,443

Maryland 73,073 91,836

Maine 56,780 76,550

Michigan 78,746 89,922

Minnesota 69,781 88,614

Missouri* 57,970 71,937

State Public 2-year Public 4-year Institutions Instiutions

Mississippi 52,230 71,202

Montana 50,610 71,125

North Carolina 502,46 83,587

North Dakota 56,587 74,146

Nebraska 58,811 80,264

New Hampshire 64,275 94,487

New Jersey 77,811 107,109

New Mexico 51,801 74,381

Nevada 70,404 88,575

New York 74,513 87,710

Ohio 63,198 84,938

Oklahoma 48,695 72,882

Oregon 70,862 80,245

Pennsylvania 65,004 90,561

Rhode Island 59,944 85,081

South Carolina 49,900 80,691

South Dakota 57,817 72,254

Tennessee 51,138 76,443

Texas 59,426 81,095

Utah 56,979 75,369

Virginia 62,157 89,216

Vermont ‡ 80,448

Washington 60,616 90,667

Wisconsin 80,163 76,705

West Virginia 48,708 71,311

Wyoming 57,981 83,966

■ Right to Work *

SOURCE: U.S. Department

of Education, National Center

for Education Statistics,

Integrated Postsecondary

Education Data System,

Salary Survey, 2015 – 2016

and 2016 – 2017.

‡ Does not apply/No institu-

tions reported.

*right to work effective Aug

28, 2017, before IPEDS salary

data collected


NEA HIGHER EDUCATION ADVOCATE6 NEA HIGHER EDUCATION ADVOCATE6

Wise Instructional Choices in an

Evidence-driven Era

It’s true—we have an unprecedented body of evidence about effective college-level teaching.

A wide range of techniques, focusing on active learning, lure with catchy titles and clever

acronyms: Think-Pair-Share, JiTT (Just in Time Teaching), Peer Instruction, POGIL (Process-

oriented Guided Inquiry Learning), and Flipped Classrooms, to name a few.

We all care about our students and want them to learn. Across disciplines, but especially

in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fi elds, institutions are under-

taking strategic initiatives, course redesigns, and curriculum transformation projects with

evidence-based instructional strategies at their core.

Whether your motivation stems from curiosity, a desire to help students, participation in

an institutional initiative, or some combination, navigating the available practices and

strategies can be overwhelming. How do you choose? What lies between choosing and

implementing? And, what can do you do if your chosen strategy doesn’t seem to work?

Here’s your chance to step back from the alphabet soup of methods and answer the under-

lying questions that will help you make wise instructional choices that take into account

your teaching context, authenticity, and interests. The following pages will guide you

through key steps toward navigating the terrain of evidence-based teaching.

Thriving inAcademeREFLECTIONS ON HELPING STUDENTS LEARN

Thriving in Academe is a joint project of NEA and the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education

(www.podnetwork.org). For more information, contact the editor, Douglas Robertson (drobert@fi u.edu) at

Florida International University or Mary Ellen Flannery (mfl [email protected]) at NEA.

Everywhere you turn, colleagues are talking about evidence-based teaching. But even when

the evidence is convincing, it can be tough to choose a strategy and begin using it well. This

navigational guide will help you get started.

BY CASSANDRA

VOLPE HORII

California Institute of

Technology

1805Advocate_Thriving-p6-9.indd 6 4/10/18 5:09 PM

NEA HIGHER EDUCATION ADVOCATE 7NEA HIGHER EDUCATION ADVOCATE 7

Your Instructional GPS

You wouldn’t set out on a road trip without

taking your GPS-enabled device. In our

classrooms, we also need navigational

assistance. When it comes to evidence-

based teaching, our internal compasses

may not be as reliable as we think.

The sections that follow here will help you

develop your instructional GPS. Rather

than dictate methods to use (see Resources

for suggested approaches), this sequence

will help you evaluate teaching methods

and decide what to use and how to use it.

Research about adoption of evidence-based

teaching suggests most faculty are familiar

with such techniques and may be convinced

they’re worth trying, but long-term imple-

mentation lags behind. To make these tech-

niques something you can see yourself

doing and that you are willing to stick with,

it helps to prepare as follows.

Foundational questions

In your own discipline, you have go-to

questions that you instinctively run through

when faced with a new artifact, problem,

text, or piece of evidence. You likely devel-

oped your processes through intensive

study, exposure to many examples, and a

great deal of practice. You can develop

your refl exes for productive questioning

of evidence-based teaching methods, too.

I TALES FROM REAL LIFE > GO FOR AUTHENTICITY

Meet Author

Over the past

decades, I’ve

seen our collec-

tive approach to univer-

sity teaching transform

from one based on

private wisdom to one

where teaching prac-

tices are routinely stud-

ied and discussed. I’ve

also seen the volume of

fi ndings become almost

paralyzing for some

instructors. Others feel

compelled to adopt

certain practices, even

with a strong underly-

ing sense of antipathy.

Ultimately, I’ve con-

cluded that, while we

need good evidence,

we must realize that

teaching is more than

can be summarized in

any chart. Evidence-

based pedagogies are

enacted via human

instructors, in relation-

ship with students—all

with unique personali-

ties, interests, passions,

and aspirations. The

teacher, as an authentic,

individual human being,

matters very much.

I now encourage

instructors to pick

methods that will

enable their best ex-

pression of enthusiasm

and authenticity with

students. Methods vary

in the amount of lecture,

the types of interactions

with students, the

amount and kind of

preparation, and the

distribution of your

time. Ideally, you should

feel like yourself in the

classroom. I believe that

the more you choose

evidence-based meth-

ods that feel meaning-

ful and compatible, the

more effective, enjoy-

able, and sustainable

teaching will be.

Cassandra Volpe Horii ([email protected]) is the found-ing director of the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Out-reach at the Cali-

fornia Institute of Technology and the current president of the POD Network in Higher Education. With a background in physics and atmo-spheric science, she has focused on the research and practice of educational development—improv-ing teaching and learning through faculty development, course and curriculum development, and orga-nizational development—for over 15 years. Her research interests include preparing future faculty as mentors of undergraduate re-search, organizational structures in support of systemic educational change, and innovative instruc-tional consultation methods. She is active in several national STEM education efforts and has taught courses in STEM pedagogy, sus-tainability, expository writing, and atmospheric chemistry.


NEA HIGHER EDUCATION ADVOCATE8 NEA HIGHER EDUCATION ADVOCATE8

Two pitfalls—rein-

venting the wheel

and jumping in with-

out setting student expecta-

tions—have the potential to

derail evidence-based teach-

ing methods. Here’s how

you can avoid them. First,

set aside the belief that all

of your teaching materials

need to be original. In teach-

ing, you can and should use

what others have already

developed and tested. See

the Resources section for

suitable materials; ask col-

leagues for more (they

likely will be fl attered); and

draw on published collec-

tions of classroom activi-

ties. Ask to visit colleagues’

classes and watch them in

action. Use video examples,

such as Instructional Moves

(see Resources), to see a

wider range of classroom

cases than are available on

your own campus. Second,

explain the method to stu-

dents. Tell them what you’re

doing, why it will help them

learn and succeed, and how

they are expected to partici-

pate. Since evidence-based

methods may represent a

change for students, too—

new study habits, new be-

haviors in class, new

expectations all around—a

clear and enthusiastic ex-

planation is essential. Then,

revisit the what, why, and

how with students periodi-

cally. Be sure to point out

when they succeed, how

they can improve, and when

you see a positive difference

in their learning.

Q1: WHY USE THIS METHOD?

Evidence-based methods are often pre-

sented with research that shows impressive

results, including demonstrable gains in

student learning; extra benefi ts for fi rst-

generation and underrepresented students;

improvements in attitudes toward the sub-

ject matter; or improved academic persis-

tence and success. Most such methods are

based on types of active learning—the

deliberate, guided engagement of all students

in some form of dynamic reasoning, discuss-

ing, creating, or processing. However, with-

out further refl ection, it is not always clear

what kinds of learning a technique is best

suited for and whether it aligns with your

context and goals.

For example, let’s say evidence-based

method A involves students working in

pairs on conceptual questions for a few

minutes, while B has them working in

teams of four for 20 to 30 minutes.

Method A comes with several special affor-

dances, or “why use this” attributes. These

include engaging every single student, get-

ting students to practice articulating their

reasoning, and giving the instructor a natural

segue back into whole-class engagement,

such as elaboration, explanation, and syn-

thesis by the instructor. Method A is also

feasible in any seating arrangement.

Method B, on the other hand, with its ex-

tended interaction and larger group struc-

ture, provides practice in teamwork and

fl exibility within groups. It more readily

allows for engagement with complex issues

and multi-step reasoning. It works best if

students can see each other, sitting around

a shared workspace. So depending on your

space and goals—especially whether col-

laboration skills and in-depth analysis are

important for your course or discipline—

method B may be a better match.

As you encounter new methods and ask

“why use this?” consider what the method

makes possible and how it matches the

goals you have for student learning.

Q2: WHAT ASPECTS ARE ESSENTIAL?

Evidence-based practices often can look

like faits accomplis—not surprisingly

because those people writing about them

have been through implementation and

want to share the fi nished product. That

means they may appear as all-or-nothing

packages, perhaps with an end point so far

from your current ways of teaching that it’s

diffi cult to see how you would get there.

Keeping a critical eye on the essential ele-

ments can help you maintain a mindset of

incremental adoption. In fact, experts main-

tain that integrating new methods a little at

a time into your teaching is both more real-

istic and more sustainable. It also allows

you to build on a strong foundation.

Some researchers are now starting to think

about, and advocate for, the concept of

fi delity of adoption with respect to evidence-

based pedagogies. That is, in order to main-

tain the effectiveness of the method, we

need to separate out the features that are

essential from the ones that happen to be

along for the ride or are unique to a certain

place or instructor.

You can also look for the minimum incre-

ment for any technique—i.e., while main-

taining its fi delity, does this method require

a minimum of fi ve minutes per class, or 20?

To affect student learning, do you need to

repeat it every class or once a week? Again,

this approach supports realistic adoption

and enables you to match a technique’s

smallest effective dose with a portion of

your class.

Context matters

Let’s acknowledge the reality of higher edu-

cation today—our contexts differ widely,

and what is possible in one setting may be

unreasonable elsewhere. This includes the

expectations you face in your instructional

role, whether those involve a heavy research

commitment, a high course load, a wide

variety of course preps, advising duties,

AS YOU ENCOUNTER NEW

METHODS AND ASK

“WHY USE THIS?”

CONSIDER WHAT THE

METHOD MAKES POSSIBLE

AND HOW IT MATCHES

YOUR GOALS...

I BEST PRACTICES > REUSE AND EXPLAIN



service on committees, or teaching in mul-

tiple departments, programs, or institutions.

As you enter any changes, it’s helpful to

consider the constraints and possibilities

of your context. For example, if you’re

juggling multiple course preps, you might

choose a teaching method that is fl exible

enough to work in all of your classes. If

you’re teaching on multiple campuses

with different technology systems, choos-

ing something low-tech and transportable

may be your best bet.

Use all available resources: instructional

support staff, faculty development pro-

grams, course redesign workshops, tech-

nology assistance, peer mentors, release

time, and grants. If you cannot fi nd such

support, the concept of minimum incre-

ment is even more important, and tech-

niques that save you time while helping

students learn are worth examining.

With a variety of options available, choose

evidence-based methods and implementa-

tion timelines that are in sync, not at odds,

with your identity and context.

REFERENCES AND RESOURCES Resources marked * contain extensive materials from a variety of disciplines.

Beuning, P., Besson, D., & Snyder, S. (2014). Teach Better, Save Time, and Have More Fun: A Guide to Teaching and Mentoring in Science. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation for Science Advancement. http://rescorp.org/gdresources/uploads/fi les/publications/RCSA-Teach-Better-Book.pdf

Brownwell, S. & Tanner, K. (2012). Barriers to Faculty Pedagogical Change: Lack of Training, Time, Incentives, and…Tensions with Profes-sional Identity? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339–346.

*Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative at the University of British Columbia, http://cwsei.ubc.ca/.

Cavanagh, A., Aragón, O., Chen, X., Couch, B., Durham, M. Bobrownicki, A., Hanauer, D., & Graham, M (2016). Student Buy-In to Active Learning in a College Science Course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(76), 1–9.

Eagan, M., Stolzenberg, E., Berdan Lozano, J., Aragon, M., Suchard M., & Hurtado, S. (2014). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2013–2014 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

*Instructional Moves, https://instructional-moves.gse.harvard.edu/. Features a wide range of academic disciplines, including the humanities and social sciences.

*Mathematical Association of America (2017). Instructional Practices Guide. https://www.maa.org/programs-and-communities/curriculum%20resources/instructional-practices-guide

*National Research Council (2015). Reaching Students: What Research Says About Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18687/reaching-students-what-research-says-about-effective-instruction-in-undergraduate

O’Meara, K., LaPointe Terosky, A., & Neumann, A. (2009). Faculty Careers and Work Lives: A Professional Growth Perspective. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(3).

*PhysPort: Supporting physics teaching with research-based resources. https://www.physport.org/

Student Assessment of their Learning Gains (SALG) instrument. https://salgsite.net.

*Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College, Higher Education Portal, https://serc.carleton.edu/highered/index.html.

Winkelmes, M., Bernacki, M., Butler, J., Zochowski, M., Golanics, J., & Harriss Weavil, K. (2016). A Teaching Intervention that Increases Underserved College Students’ Success. Peer Review, 18(1/2).

I ISSUES TO CONSIDER

LAY THE GROUNDWORK

When your instructional GPS is activated, these “what ifs” are less likely to be problems. Here are some additional tips.

What if my course evalu-ations suffer? First, don’t assume they will! If you’re making small changes, using tested materials, and explaining the method clearly to students, course evaluations are likely to hold steady or improve.

A proactive step you can take is to get early feed-back. Two or three weeks into class, have students fi ll out an anonymous survey about their experience in the course. It’s useful to phrase the questions in terms of learning, rather than satisfaction—the Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) sur-vey has examples you can use or adapt. Open-ended questions can also give you a sense of their perceived successes, areas of confu-sion, and practical ways to

help. Teaching centers offer expert class observations, feedback-oriented student focus groups, and assis-tance interpreting survey results. Early feedback will help you make adjustments and address points of stu-dent confusion.

If course evaluations are es-pecially high stakes on your campus, you may want to talk with your chair or dean ahead of time. Let them know your plans, how the method you’ve chosen can support students, how it connects with institutional goals, and your commit-ment to getting feedback. Knowing that your chair or dean has your back can help allay your fears and open up a positive dialogue about teaching.

What if it doesn’t work? First you need to think about how you will know if it does work. Be realistic. If you’re implementing small changes, you may not see dramatic learning gains at fi rst. You can hold certain assessments stable from one term to another to

have a comparison point. Pre/post tests and surveys capturing student attitudes may also be useful. Con-sider qualitative changes too—classroom commu-nity, teamwork, overall engagement. Give yourself just a few meaningful data points. This approach will keep you from jumping to conclusions based on lim-ited student feedback or a few non-optimal outcomes, as well as diagnose what to tweak if you need to make adjustments.

Finally, be kind to yourself and keep the big picture in view. If something goes wrong, maintain your sense of humor, explain to students what happened, make a change, and try again. Maybe you’ve given students the wise advice that failure is part of learn-ing. As it turns out, that same advice applies to evidence-based teaching.

KEEPING A CRITICAL EYE ON THE ESSENTIAL

ELEMENTS CAN HELP YOU MAINTAIN A MINDSET OF INCREMENTAL ADOPTION.



The story around parking at UMass Boston is decades long, and rife with buried trash, po-litical corruption, and impris-oned public offi cials. The latest twist is this: The university is building a new garage, and it intends to charge everybody—students, custodians, faculty alike—$15 a day to park.

“For students, across the school year, it adds up to almost the cost of an additional class, and the university is saying that they can add that cost to their tuition bills… so, more debt!” says Annetta Argyres, a UMass Boston faculty union leader. “Also, consider our classifi ed employees, who are our lowest paid employees. They are re-quired to be on campus fi ve days a week, 50 weeks a year. It adds up to an enormous amount of money, far more than any raises on the table.”

A possible solution is this: A growing movement around “bargaining for the common good.”

In common-good efforts, unions partner with community groups—students, parents, racial-justice organizations, etc.—around contract demands that benefi t not just the mem-bers of the bargaining unit but also the wider community, explains Marilyn Sneiderman, director of the Center for Inno-vation in Worker Organization at Rutgers. Since 2012, several K-12 NEA-affi liated unions, most notably in St. Paul, have used this strategy to win con-tract provisions that include more school counselors and librarians, and less standard-ized testing.

It makes sense to also use common-good bargaining in higher education, especially at public institutions whose missions—and funding—are entangled with the wellbeing of their communities. They’re often the largest local land owners and employers, and fuel the economic development of their regions. Bargaining for the common good can trans-form institutions “from crucibles of inequality into epicenters of democratic… empowerment,” said Joe McCartin, executive director of the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown.

Recently, Argyres and other Massachusetts Teachers Associ-ation members, as well as lead-ers from the California Faculty Association (CFA), attended a convening at Rutgers of more than 200 union, community and racial-justice leaders, co-sponsored by NEA, where they learned how to run these types of campaigns.

“We’re in a time and place, where people are willing to look differently at their unions and the work that they do,” said CFA Vice President Charles Toombs, who led a delegation of CFA members to the Rutgers event. For CFA, this has meant re-writing its bylaws so that it focuses more on anti-racism and social justice.

“This social justice work is going to be a way to insure strong membership,” said Toombs. And, even more impor-tant, “In a state like California, to ignore these issues is to do a disservice to the students we teach, especially as we have so

many students of color and DACA students.”

In its last contract, CFA won a new article that addresses “cultural taxation,” or the pen-alty paid by many faculty of color for the disproportionate work they do to support students of color. Now, money has been allocated to help compensate faculty, often in the form of release time, who do “exceptional work with those students,” said Toombs.

This is an example of common-good bargaining—it takes a common-good issue, like the success of students of color, and codifi es it in contract lan-guage. “It’s a way to bring our concerns with anti-racism and social justice into the contract,” said Toombs.

It’s also a way for “not only our members to see why they need unions and what they do, but also our larger community to see why we need unions and what they do,” said Argyres.

In Boston, common-good bar-gaining may start with park-ing—the union’s proposal calls for no student fees—but it may lead to bigger issues around land use and student services. “We need to get more bold and more creative about how we use our contracts,” said Argyres, who also plans to invite stu-dents to the next bargaining session with the university.

“We see no reason that they shouldn’t be there for open bargaining. This is a conversa-tion that affects all of us,” she said.

ANNETTA ARGYRES

Director of the Labor

Extension Program,

UMass Boston

CHARLES TOOMBS

Chair of Africana

Studies, San Diego

State University

FIND OUT MORE:

RESOURCES

See here:

bargainingforthe

commongood.org

UNION WORK

Bargaining for the

Common Good

Our K12 brothers and sisters are doing this well. Higher ed is next.

1805Advocate-Bargaining+Numbers_p10-11.indd 10 4/13/18 5:14 PM


The Growing Problem of Decreasing State Funds for Higher Ed

EVEN MORE THAN THEIR K12 COUNTERPARTS, public colleges and universities have relied on state legislatures to pay for the costs of providing a high-quality higher education to their students. As state funds have decreased over the past 25 years, a NEA Research project shows how the burden has shifted to students and families. But even skyrocketing tuitions can’t cover the increasing costs of college. NEA Research also has found that states have turned to other strategies: 20 states have laid off university or college staff; 17 have laid off faculty; more than a dozen have cut academic programs.For more details, visit nea.org/ImpactOnHESpending

20 STATES HAVE LAID OFF UNIVERSITY OR

COLLEGE STAFF; 17 HAVE LAID OFF

FACULTY

BY THE NUMBERS

Cost-cutting Strategies*

STAFF LAYOFFS FACULTY LAYOFFS CUT ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

* As of this writing, no information was found for IN, NH, NJ, ND, and UT

The Shifting Burden: From States to Families

NOTES: Data adjusted for infl ation using the Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA). Full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment equates student credit hours to full-time, academic year students, but excludes medical students. Edu-cational appropriations are a measure of state and local support available for public higher education operating expenses including ARRA funds, and exclude appropriations for independent institutions, fi nancial aid for students attending independent institutions, research, hospitals, and medical education. Net tuition revenue is calculated by taking the gross amount of tuition and fees, less state and institutional fi nancial aid, tuition waivers or discounts, and medical student tuition and fees. Net tuition revenue used for capital debt service is included in the net tuition revenue fi gures above.

12 –

10 –

8 –

6 –

Public FTE

Enrollment

(Millions)

Net Tuition

Revenue,

Dollars per FTE

– $16,000

– $14,000

– $12,000

– $10,000

– $8,000

– $6,000

– $4,000

– $2,000

– 0

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

$

3,0

98

$3,3

56

$3,5

66

$3,6

89

$3,7

88

$

3,9

14

$3,9

62

$

3,9

87

$3,9

89

$

3,7

88

$

3,9

26

$3,9

36

$4,0

17

$4,2

28

$4,3

83

$4,6

91

$

4,7

63

$

4,6

82

$4,7

58

$4,9

91

$5,1

51

$5,5

87

$5,8

63

$6,0

29

$6,2

07

$6,3

21

EducationalAppropriations,Dollars per FTE

$

8,6

16

$8,1

47

$7,8

50

$7,9

39

$8,1

93

$

8,2

72

$

8,5

69

$

8,8

49

$9,0

73

$8,9

78

$9,2

35

$8,8

85

$

8,2

41

$7,6

93

$7,6

36

$

8,0

44

$8,2

43

$8,3

72

$7,8

05

$

7,2

00

$6,8

88

$6,1

85

$6,2

85

$

6,6

15

$

6,8

95

$

7,1

16

1805Advocate-Bargaining+Numbers_p10-11.indd 11 4/16/18 8:56 PM


Congratulations!

AT THE 2018 NEA HIGHER EDUCATION CONFERENCE IN MARCH, MANY

WERE HONORED FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO HIGHER EDUCATION.

For his decades of service in the U.S. Senate, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois received the Friend of Higher Education Award from NEA’s National Council for Higher Education (NCHE). Durbin authored the original Dream Act, and was the fi rst member of Congress to call for the establishment of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) pro-gram. He also has been a fi erce protector of Pell Grants, and

has fought against the abuses of the for-profi t college industry. Last year, he introduced legislation to make adjunct faculty eligible for student loan forgiveness.

“She is fi ghting for you,” NCHE President DeWayne Sheaffer told the hundreds of NEA Higher Ed members at the Chicago conference. “But most of all, she is fi ght-ing for her students.” For those efforts, former United Faculty of Florida (UFF) President Elizabeth Davenport, Ph.D., J.D., received NCHE’s James Davenport Memorial Award for her service to her union and to the mission of higher education. Davenport, who also served

as president of her UFF-affi liated faculty union at Florida A&M University, recently accepted a job at Alabama State University where her efforts will continue to be focused on mentoring students of color.

“I am a guerilla educator,” said Dr. Loretta Ragsdell, a faculty member at the City Colleges of Chicago and president of its part-time faculty union. “I educate in every opportunity—the grocery store, the laundromat, Macy’s! If there is something I can share, I’m going to share it.” In recognition of her passion for education, which has taken her career from preschool classrooms to college, where she currently teaches writing and English, Ragsdell received NCHE’s inaugural Higher Educator of the Year Award. “Some people were born with a silver

spoon in their mouth. I like to think I was born with a textbook in one hand and a lesson plan in the other.”

“At the core of this debate is a key question: what is the central purpose of a college education?” asks Alec Thomson, professor of political science at Michigan’s Schoolcraft College, in his 2017 Thought & Action article, “Dual Enrollment’s Expan-sion: Cause for Concern.” For his efforts, which get to the heart of what happens in college classrooms today, Thomson won the annual NEA Art of Teaching Prize. Meanwhile, Uni-

versity of Texas authors Patricia Somers, Jessica Fry, and Carlton Fong took on one of the hottest topics on campuses: campus-carry laws and how they especially affect women. For their article, “Duck and Cover, Little Lady: Women and Campus Carry,” Somers and her co-authors won the annual NEA Democracy in Action Prize. To read their award-winning articles, visit nea.org/thoughtaction, or order a free copy of the Summer 2017 issue of Thought & Action at www.subscribenea.com. Use the special code NEAHIGHERED.

SUMMER READING

The Salary Issue

Forget that beach novel.

There will be nothing more capti-

vating on your summer reading list

than the annual Special Salary Issue of the

NEA Higher Education Advocate.

Wondering if you could earn more at the

community college down the road? This

year’s issue includes average salary data

for full-time faculty of varying ranks at

every public college and university in the

U.S., as well as average stipends for grad-

uate assistants in dozens of fi elds.

It also explores salary trends in every state,

the gender gap, and the growing disparity

between faculty pay at Historically Black

Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and

predominantly white land-grant institutions.

Check it out at nea.org/advocate.

1805Advocate-SpecialP12+StateopfHEP13.indd 12 4/13/18 5:19 PM


After six long years, pay raises for Chicago faculty

This spring, after six years working with-out a contract, part-time faculty at the City Colleges of Chicago settled their long-standing dispute with a new 2012-2020 contract that provides yearly retroactive bonuses ranging from 2 percent in 2012-13 to 10.4 percent in 2016-17. By 2019, a CCC adjunct with a master’s degree and seven years of experience will earn about $2,900 per three-credit class. The new contract also provides greater opportunities for part-time faculty to teach additional classes, and establishes a $100,000 fund for their professional development.

Florida lawmakers aim to kill unions—but we’ll see...

A new state law requires Florida’s K12 ed-ucation unions to have at least 50 percent of eligible teachers as dues-paying mem-bers, or face decertifi cation. The aim is to weaken the Florida Education Association (FEA), especially in this epic election year,

but the law has rallied educators, includ-ing United Faculty of Florida members. “We saw this coming and know it’s driven by politics, plain and simple,” FEA President Joanne McCall said. “But it’s going to help us, so I say to the Republican leadership, thank you very much.”

Welcome Southwestern Michigan College faculty!

Full-time faculty members at Southwestern Michigan College voted this spring to unionize. The roughly 60 faculty recently have felt overlooked in campus decisions. For example, administrators didn’t consult faculty in a decision to lengthen the fall semester and shorten winter break. The lack of a powerful faculty voice was more an impetus to unionize than anything else, including pay, union organizers said.

Keane State staff put their new contract to work

Nearly 300 staff members at Keane State College voted in April 2016 to unionize—

and just in time. “It was clear we were in a pivotal moment and needed to do some-thing,” said Kim Gagne, president of the Keane State College Staff Association (KSCSA). Faced with declining student enrollment, last year Keane State offi cials announced $5.5 million budget cuts, and an immediate need to trim their work-force. This spring, more than three dozen staff members voluntarily accepted buy-outs, while other staff members transition to new roles on campus. But the process has been mediated by the three new NEA-affi liated staff unions, who have put their solidarity, unifi ed voice, and contracts to work. “We’re working directly with em-ployees whose responsibilities might be most impacted by these changes, and working to make sure the process is inclu-sive and that staff voices are heard,” said Gagne. For example, current staff employ-ees can apply fi rst for vacant positions. What college offi cials and union leaders know is this: “We all have the same goal,” said Gagne. “We want this to be a great place for our community, and for our stu-dents, and we also want it to be a great place to work.”

THE STATE OF HIGHER ED

NEA HIGHER ED: THE MARCH FOR OUR LIVES

Among the estimated 850,000 people who rallied in Wash-ington, D.C., on March 24 during the anti-gun violence March for Our Lives were NEA Higher Ed members who trav-eled from around the country.

The rally was organized by students from Marjorie Douglas Stoneman High School in Parkland, Fla., where 17 students and staff members were shot and killed in six minutes this spring by a former student armed with a semi-automatic AR-15 rifl e.

Joining them from Florida were former United Faculty of Florida (UFF) President Jennifer Proffi tt (pictured on the far left); Adela Ghamini, president of the Florida State University-Graduate Student Association (next to Proffi tt); and current UFF President

Karen Morian (far right). From Oregon’s Umpqua Community College, where eight students and one faculty member were shot and killed by a student in 2015, were Honey McNamara and Brian Proctor (pictured in the middle right) from the Association for Classifi ed Employees of Umpqua Com-munity College (ACE of UCC).

Last year, Proffi tt and co-author John Wesley White wrote an article for NEA’s Thought & Action journal about how the National Rifl e Association has worked to make guns legal on college campuses, even as faculty, students, and law enforcement have argued against it. The article, which won last year’s NEA’s Democ-racy in Action Prize, is available at nea.org/home/70161. Please also see Ghadimi’s editorial on the back cover.

PHOTO: LUIS GOMEZ

1805Advocate-SpecialP12+StateopfHEP13.indd 13 4/10/18 5:10 PM

NEA MEMBERS INSURANCE TRUST®

AND PLAN

2016 SUMMARY ANNUAL REPORT

(Plan Year Beginning September 1, 2016)

The following is the summary annual report for the NEA Members Insurance Trust® and Plan (collectively Trust),

Employer Identifi cation Number 53-0115260, providing information on the insurance programs sponsored by

the National Education Association (NEA) including the NEA Life Insurance® Program, NEA Accidental Death &

Dismemberment Insurance Program, and NEA Complimentary LifeSM Program for the period beginning September 1,

2016, and ending August 31, 2017. The annual report has been fi led with the Employee Benefi ts Security Administration,

as required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

BASIC NEA MEMBERS INSURANCE TRUST FINANCIAL INFORMATION

The value of Trust assets, after subtracting liabilities of the Trust, was $202,780,456 as of August 31, 2017, compared

to $196,957,926 as of September 1, 2016. During the Trust year, the Trust experienced an increase in its net assets of

$5,822,530. During the Trust year, the Trust had total income of $124,864,590 including participant contributions of

$106,915,282, a net appreciation in the market value of investments of $12,942,774, and earnings from investments of

$5,006,534. Trust expenses were $119,942,060. These expenses included benefi ts paid to participants and benefi ciaries,

administrative and other expenses.

INFORMATION FOR NEA LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM

The Trust has a contract with Minnesota Life Insurance Company to pay all NEA Preferred Term Life Insurance claims

and The Prudential Insurance Company of America to pay all other NEA Life Insurance claims incurred under the terms

of this program. Because it is a so called “experienced rated” contract, the premium costs are affected by, among other

things, the number and size of claims. The total premiums for the Trust plan year beginning September 1, 2016, and

ending August 31, 2017, made under such “experienced-rated” contract were $65,390,722 and the total of all benefi t

claims paid under the contract during the Trust year was $59,854,783. The total number of participants was 525,072.

INFORMATION FOR NEA ACCIDENTAL DEATH & DISMEMBERMENT (AD&D) PROGRAMS

The Trust has a contract with The Prudential Insurance Company of America to pay all NEA AD&D and NEA AD&D Plus

claims incurred under the terms of the Trust. Because it is a so called “experienced rated” contract, the premium costs

are affected by, among other things, the number and size of claims. The total premiums for the Trust plan year beginning

September 1, 2016, and ending August 31, 2017, made under such “experienced-rated” contract were $5,365,312 and

the total of all benefi t claims paid under the contract during the Trust year was $4,011,126. The Trust has a contract

with The Prudential Insurance Company of America which allocates funds toward group insurance certifi cates for the

NEA AD&D Advantage Program. The total premiums for the Trust plan year beginning September 1, 2016, and ending

August 31, 2017, was $22,910. The total number of participants was 199,291 in all AD&D Programs.

INFORMATION FOR NEA COMPLIMENTARY LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM

The Trust has a contract with The Prudential Insurance Company of America to pay all NEA Complimentary Life Insurance

claims incurred under the terms of the Trust. The NEA Complimentary Life Insurance Program is self-supporting and

paid by premiums from the NEA Members Insurance Trust funds rather than from Member contributions. Because it is

a so called “experienced rated” contract, the premium costs are affected by, among other things, the number and size

of claims. The total premiums for the Trust plan year beginning September 1, 2016, and ending August 31, 2017, were

$1,459,546 and the total of all benefi t claims paid under the contract during the Trust year was $1,246,690. The total

number of participants was 3,196,793.

YOUR RIGHTS TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

As a participant, you have the legally protected right to receive a copy of the full annual report, or any part thereof for

a reasonable charge or you may inspect the Annual Report without charge at the offi ce of NEA Members Insurance

Trust, Attn: NEA Member Benefi ts, 1201 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 or at the U.S. Department

of Labor in Washington, D.C. upon payment of copying costs. Requests to the Department should be addressed to:

Public Disclosure Room, Room N–1513, Employee Benefi ts Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. You also have the right to receive from the Trust Administrator, on

request and at no charge, a statement of the assets and liabilities of the Trust and accompanying notes, or a statement

of income and expenses of the Trust and accompanying notes, or both. If you request a copy of the full annual report

from the plan administrator, these two statements and accompanying notes will be included as part of that report. The

charge to cover copying costs given above does not include a charge for the copying of these portions of the report

because these portions are furnished without charge.


1805Advocate-MITad+FinStateP14-15.indd 14 4/10/18 5:10 PM


I am so proud of this organiza-tion. And, I am so proud of every one of you—the faculty

and staff who protect public education and play an essential and critical role in student suc-cess. Throughout our history, we have proven that we are a powerful force for social justice, equity and a strong voice for our members’ rights.

Today, we are faced with an increasingly growing hostile force that is trying to undo many of the things that we and the labor movement have fought so hard for so many decades to win. But we will not stand by and allow anyone to strip away our rights, silence our voice, or diminish the power of unions without a fi ght.

Our brothers and sisters in West Virginia recently showed us that workers have power and that when we fi ght back, we can win. The power of organized labor has never been derived from laws on the books or leaders who speak from a bully pulpit. Our power is generated through the sheer determination, confi dence, and solidarity of workers who refuse to back down.

I truly believe that public employee unions are the last stronghold of organized labor in this country. Now more than ever, we need your input, your engagement, your activism, and your willingness to do whatever it takes to save public education, and that includes protecting and preserving our students’ access to a high-quality, higher education.

As your NEA Secretary-Treasurer, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address you and provide a fi nancial overview of NEA’s audited fi nancial state-ments for the fi scal year ended August 31, 2017. An essential component of sound fi nancial stewardship is to implement re-sponsible fi nancial management practices that are essential to the long-term sustainability of an organization. This is precisely what we have done and will con-tinue to do at the national level.

In our ongoing eff ort to be fi scally responsible, we have managed to halt the decline in membership this year. Despite the diffi cult economic climate and other challenges, the Association’s fi scal vigilance has allowed it to achieve a

positive fi nancial outcome for the 2016 – 2017 year. Achiev-ing positive results during an increasingly diffi cult time is not to be taken lightly; it is indeed something in which we can all take great pride.

During the 2016 – 2017 fi scal year, we had a membership gain of 17,643 members. Our General Operating Fund Unrestricted Net Assets increased by $3,750,031 and our Consolidated Net Assets increased by $10,417,019.

This increase in our Net Assets is a positive indicator of our fi scal health and enables us to continue to advocate for our members, our students, and for public education.

The auditors’ opinion letter stated that their work was performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. It is an unmodifi ed opinion, which is sometimes referred to as a “clean opinion,” issued without any qualifying comments. An unmodifi ed opinion is the highest form of assurance we can receive from our independent audit fi rm.

The Consolidated State-ments of Financial Position rep-resent the assets, liabilities, and net assets of NEA and its wholly owned subsidiaries as of August 31, 2017. The General Operating Fund Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Assets refl ects NEA’s total revenue and expenses by strategic goals and core function areas for the year ended August 31, 2017.

The chart on the opposite page shows a breakdown of how the $189.00 Active Professional dues and $115.50 Active ESP dues for 2017 – 2018 are allocated to support and represent members and affi liates in their eff orts to achieve NEA’s mission.

NOTE: A complete copy of the

NEA audit report is available upon

request.

REPORT

NEA Financial ReportFROM NEA SECRETARY-TREASURER PRINCESS MOSS

How Your

Modified

2017–2018

Dues Dollars

Are Allocated

The chart below shows how your modified NEA dues ($189.00; $115.50 ESP) are allocated to support and represent members and affiliates in their efforts to achieve NEA’s mission.

Build key overarching systems to enhance affiliate capacity to organize, engage, and empower members to fend off attacks on their rights and to improve public education, with emphasis on ballot measures and legislative initiatives. Provide financial support, technical assistance, field support, member engagement support, communications support, partnership brokering, and facilitate the sharing of best practices throughout the Association.

Strong Affiliates for Educator Voice and Empowerment $18.77 (ESP $11.47)

Develop meaningful partnerships with school sites, local affiliates, and state affiliates to move an Association-led, student-centered agenda focused on quality and equity, with a special emphasis on the quality of the professionals, the quality of professional practice, the quality of student learning, and the quality of educator and Association leadership.

Empowered Educators for Successful Students $10.95 (ESP $6.69)

$18.77

$0.80

$52.04

$19.12

$17.27

$38.13

$7.55 $11.85$1.54

$10.95

$10.98

Provide support to affiliates in efforts to expand, improve, and enhance pro-public education policy, improve practice, teaching and learning conditions, standards, workforce quality, and priority schools. Provides specific attention to policies related to ESP and Higher Education.

Research, Policy, and Practice $0.80 (ESP $0.49)

Harness the incredible power of members to engage in and advocate for NEA’s pro-public education agenda, policies, programs, and recommended candidates. Engage partners, particularly in the ethnic minority communities, in advocacy for laws and policies that enhance the lives of and protect the rights of our members, while improving public education within the pursuit of social justice.

Member Advocacy $10.98 (ESP $6.71)

Meet the communications needs of the Strategic Goals and ongoing everyday operations that reach all key audiences in the most effective way. Provide customizable communications with applicability and utility for affiliates and align perennial NEA signature programs and publications, including its flagship magazine, NEA Today, to highlight work to improve public education.

Communications $17.27 (ESP $10.55)

Implement advocacy programs for members including the Unified Legal Services Program, Fidelity Bond, Association Professional Liability insurance, and a $1 million per member Educators Employment Liability insurance program.

Legal and Insurance Support $19.12 (ESP $11.69)

Provide business operations to ensure organizational effectiveness through technology infrastructure, financial services, facilities services, and human resources to serve the needs of affiliates and members.

Business Operations $38.13 (ESP $23.30)

No dues dollars are used to support NEA Member Benefits programs.

Implement an inclusive, engaged governance process that fosters member participation and democratic decision-making through such governing bodies as the Representative Assembly, NEA Board, NEA Executive Committee, and NEA committees and task forces.

Governance $7.55 (ESP $4.61)

Support the UniServ program, test effective value propositions for all membership classes, develop a culture of organizing to drive more effective member recruitment, retention, and relevance and by doing so, build Association and member capacity.

Organizing and Operational Support to Affiliates $52.04 (ESP $31.81)

Provide funding for emergencies at the national, state, or local levels.

Contingency $1.54 (ESP $0.94)

Ensure synergy across NEA’s goals, Strong Affiliates for Educator Voice and Empowerment and Empowered Educators for Successful Students.

Goals’ Shared Tactics $11.85 (ESP $7.24)

1805Advocate-MITad+FinStateP14-15.indd 15 4/10/18 5:10 PM


FOR FAR TOO MANY in our country, the 17 deaths at

Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Park-

land, Florida, has reopened the wounds of those

who have felt the loss and trauma of gun violence.

And yet, as a society, when these events become

common, we can become desensitized to a point

of turning this tragedy into a mere political debate.

As a former research associate for the VT Family

Outreach Foundation, I know fi rsthand from those

in my life who experienced such loss at Virginia

Tech in 2007 that the trauma of gun violence is not

felt just by immediate loved ones, but by victims’

friends, neighbors, educators, and anyone who

knew them, leaving rippling effects that revictimize

and open their wounds when similar tragedies

occur. To anyone who has lived through such an

experience, I want you to know that you are not

alone, and that there are so many of us who stand

with you in healing power.

This unique time in modern history has shown

us one thing in recent weeks—this is not a moment,

this is a movement. Our strength, as educators and

union members, is in our collective voice, and if we

engage, act, and advocate for ourselves and our stu-

dents, we can ensure that this movement reaps

benefi ts and true change for decades to come.

Rather than arming teachers, true solutions to

gun violence in our schools and on our campuses

should focus on expanding mental health services

in schools, funding and training threat assessment

teams, supporting stricter gun control laws and

background checks while attacking the underlying

issues that give rise to such violence in the fi rst

place. Challenge your students to engage in critical

thinking, and do not shy away from fostering discus-

sion in a meaningful way to allow them to draw their

own conclusions and learn to disagree in a construc-

tive way. Our job as educators is to expand and

challenge the existing worldviews of our students,

and to continue to cultivate the next generation of

leaders, adequately equipping them with the skills

they will need to succeed.

Mobilize with your colleagues to attend city

and county council meetings, statewide education

board hearings, and to meet with your elected

representatives at the local, state and federal level.

Attend their town halls and request meetings at their

offi ce so we can show them that enough is enough.

If they are hesitant to act in a way that preserves

the safety and sanctity of our educational system in

this country, we will be here to hold them account-

able. Call, write, and show up in your communities,

because when we raise our collective voice, we will

not be ignored or silenced.

There is strength in our numbers, and our

collective voice can lead to long-lasting change if

we work as a unit. The time to act as leaders and

own our piece of control is now. Together, we can

be the change.

In solidarity.

Stay in touch with

current legislation,

developing trends in

higher education, and

more through the

NEA eAdvocate, a

monthly enewsletter.

To subscribe, visit

www.nea.org/he

1201 16th St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20036-3290

eADVOCATE

16 NEA HIGHER EDUCATION ADVOCATE

Adela Ghadimi is a Ph.D. student

in public policy at Florida State

University, and president of the

United Faculty of Florida-FSU-

Graduate Assistants United.

NEA Higher Ed is on Twitter! To keep up with current news and discuss

events with your colleagues, fi nd us at @NEAHigherEd.

An open letter to my colleagues about gun violence

1805Advocate-OpEdP16.indd 16 4/13/18 5:21 PM

nea higher educationadvocate · nea leads effort to protect student loan forgiveness (and wins!)...

Documents